I think Ellison will get off scot free since she only controlled Alameda, and not entirely. Her crimes are probably minor and worth forgiving for her testimony. At least that’s my hot take.
At the very least she will be deemed unfit or proper, which means she will be barred from any financial activity for the years to come.
On top of that, as a MOO & RO she will be professionally and personally liable to millions in fines, and most likely jail time.
Negligence _is_ a crime, a lack of means _is_ a crime, a lack of knowledge or control are crimes as well, for any regulated person, especially at the MOO/RO level, a lack of chinese wall between investment and retail is a crime, accepting money from an unverified source is akin to money laundering for an investment firm.
Edit: MOO, ROs (responsible officers) and MICs (managers in charge) are regulated activities that should be assigned to individuals performing specific duties in an investment fund. Each regulator will have different names and variations on their duties and structure, but overall it's pretty much aligned.
It is mandatory for a regulated firm to have a specific amount and hierarchy of these regulated activities, and each one of them comes with a set of duties.
These activities are the main vector by which regulators enforce and control individual managers.
MOO is often assigned to the CEO. ROs are often the key investment officers, and MICs are often the key tech & operation officers.
Edit2: Hedge funds are no less regulated than any other investment firm. You are mixing "prop shops"/"family offices" and hedge funds.
Alameda was definitely an asset manager as it received external funds and was selling (debt) securities.
Hedge funds are not magic places where you can say teehee i just used money I found
I’m not saying she’s fully innocent, maybe there’s some incriminating text messages or something, but from the public information so far it doesn’t seem cut and dry to convict her of a serious crime.
These are not only for customer protection, but anti money laundering as well.
Small regulators often overlook the client risk part so as to attract foreign money (that's why most of these regulators will be OK with little to no restriction of derivatives). The anti money laundering part though is very important for these small regulators as they could be fined internationally and don't want the bad publicity.
You cannot just "accept money and trust its from a legitimate source".
I've seen considerable evidence that the FTX empire, including Alameda, was jointly run by a narrow set of leaders, in which Caroline was #2, not a set of separate, arms length enterprises.
No way Ellison is getting off scot free. I'd expect her to get a huge reduction in her sentence, but would still be shocked if she got no jail time.
It has been reported that there was a meeting that included SBF, Ellison and the other high ups at FTX where the decision was deliberately, explicitly made that Alameda would use customer funds to prop itself up. That is most definitely a crime on Ellison's part if true.
> which is, in and of itself, insane because FTT worked more like a stock of FTX itself - a company doesn't put its own stock on the asset side of the balance sheet
Thinking about it, it makes sense. But I never did before. So where does a company’s own stock normally end up at, balance-wise?
The company’s own stock is in the equity section (treasury stock – stock that the company has repurchased after it was issued is a contra equity account, since the act of purchasing reduces stockholder equity.)
Though I would disagree that FTT really functioned equivalently to ownership shares.
* FTX's success was helped a lot by the reputation of Sam and Alameda as the best of the best * Alameda bankruptcy proceedings would have unveiled some skeletons, like the unlimited borrowing of user funds (confirmed by court filing recently)
Many news outlets reported this. She participated on the crime
If Alameda executives knew that FTX customer funds were being commingled with Alameda’s then they were well aware their source of capital was from customer money they shouldn’t have been touching. It’s not just that they were given unlimited margin from FTX.
Well if you look at what the mainstream media are saying, the very same mainstream media who were presenting SBF as the second coming of the Christ on their front cover, you're not looking very much.
For a start it's proven that some people who wanted to send hefty sum of money to FTX had to wire it to Alameda to dodge controls. That's wire fraud.
Then it's clear that Alameda manipulated the market and were the ones behind the pump and dumping of several shitcoins. Including several shitcoins of SBF's creation.
But really... People who actually called SBF for the ponzi boy and FTX and Alameda for the complete ponzis they were, months or even years before they failed, have lots of evidence that Alameda was part of a bigger criminal operation, before FTX even existed.
If you really believe it's a coincidence the top lawyers at FTX and Bitfinex happened to be colleague at a company caught in an online poker cheating scandal I've got a bridge to sell you.
From the very start even just the naming of Alameda as "Alameda Research" was part of the con (SBF says on video he added "research" to dodge banking restrictions more easily).
The goal of Alameda Research was, from day one, to engage in criminal activities.
This entire "leveraged trade gone wrong" is lies, lies and more lies, relayed by certain media (once again: the same who were presenting SBF as an altruistic genius that was going to save the world).
Now maybe that Alameda also fucked up trades but I'm pretty sure that a lot of the missing billions mysteriously ended up at the hands of those behind the iFined/tether/Bitfinex/Deltec cartel.
Funnily enough this may make tether a bit more backed now.
One of the latest development btw is that one of the shareholder of Bitfinex is a now convicted money launderer (China just arrested sixty people in relation with chinese mafia money laundering through stashes of cash that found their way to Hong Kong and then were exchanged for USDT: $1.7 bn at least).
FTX / Alameda are one and the same and it's highly likely they were just a front for tether, with SBF as the useful idiot.
Some are going to say: "there's no evidence" but this entire thing stinks.
And nobody will convince me that Alameda didn't commit any crime.
Alameda, just like Moonstone bank (bought by SBF from Deltec) and the tens if not hundreds of companies SBF had, were part of a criminal operation.
But it's quite possible that after the DOJ finishes twisting enough thumbs, they will have a stronger case against her than you or I do.
Did she get any special loans or other gifts from FTX like SBF's parents got a free condo in the Bahamas ???.
This is most definitely a hot take.
Sam Trabucco - now there is a name you never hear ... yet he was CEO and left 2 months before they went bankrupt ...
Granted they technically have no fiduciary duty to users since nobody signed a contract with them, I doubt they get off scott free.